PDA

View Full Version : Do the assault cannon rules/points need changing? (Revised)



Smokedog
09-09-2006, 12:22
As promised a more comprhensive poll as the other one spawned many more options that originally posted.

Please vote here :evilgrin:

PS. Please note it is a multiple choice vote and if choosing option 8 (remove rending add Ap1 for hits on a 6) you do not need to choose option 4 (remove rending).

Nehcrum
09-09-2006, 12:25
Yay, first reply. Before poll even.

Edit: And since it is before poll, let me just say:
Yes, it does need revising.

Xander-K
09-09-2006, 13:11
no its fine, the only models that are survivable that can weild them are terminators (and the LRC), and they are damn expensive anyway.

Draedan
09-09-2006, 14:46
You pay through the nose to get them as it is. There is nothing wrong with them.

I play a Deathwing and it is the only decent weapon availible to my terminators. Flamer template is too short and cyclone has too few shots. The only other things that get the assault cannon are certain land raiders (a huge point sink) and speeders which needed the extra punch anyway.

Nehcrum
09-09-2006, 14:59
You pay through the nose to get them as it is. There is nothing wrong with them.

I play a Deathwing and it is the only decent weapon availible to my terminators. Flamer template is too short and cyclone has too few shots. The only other things that get the assault cannon are certain land raiders (a huge point sink) and speeders which needed the extra punch anyway.
You forgot dreadnoughts.

Speeders with assacannons can wreak an enourmous amount of havoc...

The problem with the asscannon is that it's better at tearing up vehicles than a lascannon. And it's umatched at shooting against horde, and merely awesome when it comes to heavy infantry.

The main strength of the asscannon is it's incredible versatility, it's one of the best, if not the best, AT weapons, one of the best anti-horde weapons, and for shooting at MEQs, it's beaten by starcannons but not much else.
It's got relatively short range, but on everything that it is mounted, it can shoot while moving and can quickly get within shooting distance.

IMO, the rending should go.
The 4 S6 AP4 shots means it still superior to a HB, and still a good weapon, it just isn't the ultimate versatile weapon anymore.

Nehcrum
09-09-2006, 15:14
Also, what is up with the "paying through the nose to get them" comment? I've read other saying the same thing, that it is balanced by a high cost.

It cost the same for termies as a missile launcher does for devastators. A dreadnought gets one built in and has to pay more if they want a multi-melta or TL lascannon instead (have you ever seen anyone replace the asscannon with one of these? I haven't. No point when the asscannon is better at AT than these 2 AT weapons, and has the added versatility to deal with infantry...and for a cheaper cost).

Yes, land raider crusader is costly...but then it's so much more than just a platform for a asscannon....

Land speeders tornadoes are not that costly, costing less than a vyper with the dreaded starcannon and shuricannon. And yes, adding in a shuricannon upgrade since the Land speeder has a heavy bolter.
Little cheaper than the vyper, and not open-topped and with better BS.
And can deep-strike.

Ever see a Land speeder nowadays that isn't a tornado?
I don't.

Ironhand
09-09-2006, 15:21
I think the assault cannon is fine as it is. I haven't seen anything in my games against SM to make me think it's grossly overpowered.

RampagingRavener
09-09-2006, 15:31
Generally I think its fine as it is, but I would like to see some sort of Jam rule added, just for additional character and entertainment value.

UnRiggable
09-09-2006, 16:20
It's way too underpriced, especially when compared to the psycannon, a weapon of equal strength and 5 points more. I just think that GW shouyld balance it out and make it Heavy 4 and that's it. Psycannon is 36" range and heavy 3, assault cannon is 24" and heavy 4 rending and 5 poits cheaper than psycannon. Pbbbbbb...
As for jamming that's a good idea.

Grand Master Raziel
09-09-2006, 16:32
It's way too underpriced, especially when compared to the psycannon, a weapon of equal strength and 5 points more. I just think that GW shouyld balance it out and make it Heavy 4 and that's it. Psycannon is 36" range and heavy 3, assault cannon is 24" and heavy 4 rending and 5 poits cheaper than psycannon. Pbbbbbb...
As for jamming that's a good idea.

You're forgetting that the psycannon ignores invulnerable saves as well as being AP4. The psycannon is probably also somewhat overpriced, and is available to Troops, and is even an option from the armory that characters can take. IMO, the psycannon is more like the (current) starcannon than like the assault cannon.

Anyway, the bulk of the complaint about the assault cannon stem from the interaction of Rending vs. vehicles, so the last option in the poll is one that should address that but not downpower it so much that it would put SM players' noses out of joint.

VetSgtNamaan
09-09-2006, 16:45
Well unlikely it will be changed till fifth edition since they already stated in the newest White Dwarf errata will not longer be used for rule changes. I find the biggest thing about assault cannons is thier rep. Yep they have a bigger rep than they perform. I can have 3 land speeder tornadoes zipping around having my opponent in a frenzy over what to do he forgets about the rest of my army. So while the Landspeeders die horrible deaths as he focuses his entire army on them for fear of my rending army of doom or some such then he is out of position as the rest of my army chews him up. Then after words no doubt he is on boards like these complaining about the donkey cannons ripped him and need to be nerfed.

I think they are fine the way they are. They are certainly not that terrible and as I have said they win me more games but for somereason causing some players to get all dumb just hand me the game.

leonmallett
09-09-2006, 19:31
I favour the remove rending, work a bit like cyclic ion blaster option. Remains potent, but not over-potent - a very rapid firing wepon that is good against vehicles and infantry: should be one or the other.

Nehcrum
09-09-2006, 19:54
Psycannons are special, and another thing totally. They cost much and they are a bolter with a speciality.

Asscannons on the other hand, would be balanced and nicely priced if rending would be removed. I think Asscannon is the only shooty weapon in 40K that has rending. I think rending should be limited to close combat attacks only, being a kiddie variant of monstrous creature.

lord_blackfang
09-09-2006, 20:08
I voted for the last option. Being the pinnacle of anti-infantry power is all fine and dandy, but also being better at knocking out heavy tanks than a lascannon is... that's just absurd.

Helicon_One
09-09-2006, 20:27
Ever see a Land speeder nowadays that isn't a tornado?
I don't.

This is the flaw with the assault cannon that needs addressing. It isn't that they break the Space Marine army, or that they single handedly mow down entire enemy lists - the limited availability fortunately prevents things getting too out of hand. The problem is that for the units which DO have assault cannon access, it makes every other available weapon option obselete. If you're taking a termy squad, there's little point bothering with Cyclones or Heavy Flamers, the AC outperforms them both by a wide margin. If you're buying Land Speeders, you'd be crazy not to take the AC-fitted Tornado version. Buy a Space Marine Dread, and the AC will do anything you want it to very nicely indeed, rather than letting you pay extra points for a more inflexible weapon fit. In addition, the fact that Assault Cannons are all mounted on mobile units means the modest range isn't even an issue to consider.

I vote for dropping Rending, a 4-shot mid-range gun would have been plenty powerful enough without throwing the kitchen sink in as well as a massive overcompensation for the underpowered 3rd Ed incarnation.

Tim

BloodiedSword
09-09-2006, 20:48
The problem here is that, in the context of the army as a whole, the Assault Cannon is not insanely overpowered. In the context of individual units and their upgrade options however, it certainly is.

As far as I can see, the easiest weapon to compare the Assault Cannon to is the Multi Melta. This is now almost completely obselete thanks to the Assault Cannon - why bother taking a single shot tank hunting weapon when an anti-infantry gun does a better job for a much lower price? Why bother paying points to make your Land Speeder worse? It doesn't make sense.

Similarly only in very rare and specialised situations is it ever worth upgrading the weapon on a Dreadnought. As for Terminators, the assault cannon is so powerful on them that most people I know take them over heavy flamers even in Cityfight - the longer range combined with move and fire and exceptional versatility is just too good.

None of these units is bad without the Assault Cannon - in fact, I would consider all but the Terminators some of the better units available to Marines, and even Terminators are decent nowadays.

Likewise, none of their other weapon options are particularly bad - so Terminators pay a lot for a Cyclone missile launcher, but they do not lose a Storm Bolter and they can move and fire it. The Land Speeder with Multi Melta is not a bad unit, but it just pales into insignificance compared to the one with the Assault Cannon.

I vote nerf - how they do this I'm not to bothered. I think rending is a nice rule and seeing the damage large calibre chainguns can do to tanks it's maybe not unjustified, but 4 shots was too much and it's still too cheap mostly thanks to its extreme versatility.

DarkstarSabre
09-09-2006, 20:52
To be honest? It could use a slight tweak.

4 shots was good. Rending was good. But 4 shots -and- Rending went just that bit too far considering the frequency of Assault cannons in armies, particularly with the changes to Land Speeder squadrons from the previous Codex.

I always felt that one or the other and a slight point reduction across the board would have fixed the assault cannon. Both was just ridiculous as with 4 shots the chances of getting a 6 are pretty decent.

Draedan
09-09-2006, 22:51
Ok, my first post was made just as I was leaving for work. Let me elaborate.

I have been playing Deathwing since 3rd Edition. I used the assault cannons and found them to be extremely lacking. Its strength and AP made it some bastard child of the flamer and the cyclone. Add in jamming and the gun just was not worth it. My close combat unit had flamers and everyone else had cyclones. The two little assault cannons I bought just sat on the shelf collecting dust.

Now for the changes made...

Dropping jamming? Very much needed. It didn't make much sense in the first place and it made an under performer even worse.

The extra shot? Good if not exactly needed. The problem was never the number of shots. The problem was that, for roughly the same price, you could get better and more reliable.

Rending? Completely unexpected but a very welcomed shot in the arm. This is what actually made the weapon viable. Unfortunately it also outclasses the other options for terminators and land speeders. As far as dreadnaughts and the crusader? I think it puts an un-upgraded dread right where it should be (but if I have the points I prefer TLLC/ML). The crusader it seems to change very little. The assault cannon was never supposed to be its main threat anyway.

So the way I see it the only problems are terminators and land speeders. There are a couple of solutions that don’t affect the dreadnaught and crusader.

Increase the point cost for the assault cannon for these two units (I can feel my terminators glaring at me right now)

Make the other weapons better. This can be done either by playing with the stats or decreasing their cost.

For terminators make the template bigger (this is something that should be done for everyone anyway with the new 2 inch unit cohesion) and give the cyclone a second shot. They used to be able to fire off multiple shots anyway. That was why they were the cyclones! I would actually field a better mixed force if this was how they were.

For land speeders (I have limited experience with them so bear with me) I don’t think point costs will really effect what people take on them. Maybe give them a rule where they could fire the multimelta twice if they don’t fire the heavy bolter.

Nehcrum
10-09-2006, 00:57
Or to just remove rending from it.
It would still be awesome against horde, that many shots with that high S and decent AP.
I would still be good against MEQs, that many shots that wound on 2+. causes a couple wounds that needs to be saved.

It would no longer rip up tanks (yes, rip up, if it's better at defeating tanks than a lascannon, then I call it ripping up). I would still have a decent chance against lighter vehicles, having 4 shots with S6, it just wouldn't outclass the lascannon anymore.

As for the rending 6 against infantry...well, I've heard a few say (in the other thread I think) that it doesn't happen that often.
Well, if it doesn't, then it's no big loss, is it?

Otherwise, I would like to see it toned down.
6 to hit means it autowounds. But still a armorsave unless beaten by the AP.
Would give it a small edge, especially on tough baddies like MCs and WLs, but wouldn't be that bad.

The_Outsider
10-09-2006, 01:26
Take it off the land speeder, job's a good'un.

Its fine on dreads and termies (since dreads aren't that heavily armoured and termies cost a lot) its just I feel not that its too good on speeders more of I find it unfluffy.

Something like that requires vast amounts of ammo, adding a lot of weight to what is basically a scout vehicle.

The weapon itself is fine, with only a 24" range it can usually be taken out pretty easily (bar on termies, which is the point).

Don't forget, on landspedders its not just the weapon, its the damage chart that makes it powerful (skimmers being rather tough IMO).

Draedan
10-09-2006, 02:42
I think most of the arguments against the assault cannon are based on theory. Using as many assault cannons as I do I have seen many different outcomes in the shooting phase.

Has anyone here actually seen this "devistation" wreaked by an assault cannon? I sure haven't. Often it takes the combined might of 2-3 terminator squads to take out a single AV14. That is 530-795 points of DW focused on a single target.

I agree with a previous poster. The effect of the assault cannon seems to be more psycological than anything.

insectum7
10-09-2006, 03:40
I think most of the arguments against the assault cannon are based on theory. Using as many assault cannons as I do I have seen many different outcomes in the shooting phase.

Has anyone here actually seen this "devistation" wreaked by an assault cannon? I sure haven't. Often it takes the combined might of 2-3 terminator squads to take out a single AV14. That is 530-795 points of DW focused on a single target.

I agree with a previous poster. The effect of the assault cannon seems to be more psycological than anything.

Yeah I agree with that, supposedly theyre awesome game breakers, but man I ain't seen it at all. They may be better then some available alternatives, but they really arent all they are cracked up to be.

I vote that they are fine as is.

Assault Cannons don't break the game, PEOPLE break the game.

mooserehab86
10-09-2006, 03:49
I think the assault cannon is fine as it is. While I think a jamming rule would add more character to the weapon, I really don't have any problem with its current rules. When taken in moderation, they can add a nice amount of firepower to an army; those people who field armies based entirely around assault cannons are free to do so, at the risk of being called unoriginal and boring. Maybe in the next edition, instead of changing the assault cannon rules, GW could just add a little note that says "Using this weapon sometimes results in opponents calling you cheesy. This is reflected in its points cost."

abomination
10-09-2006, 04:15
Yes, there seems to be more animosity associated with the perception that it is the best gun than there is with any actual game-breaking.

--

Rather than reiterate what I said in the previous thread concerning this matter I will pose this question...

Is the real issue here the 'Nine-Tornado' force that people have been moaning about of late?

I would be interested in hearing battle reports from those who have played against such a force. No theoryhammer, please. I'm not interested in the speculations of those who haven't at the very least seen this force in action. I want to know if this build is truly as abusive as it is made out to be.

If the issue at the heart of the matter is indeed the increasing number of Tornados in Space Marine armies then something can be done about that specifically. There is no need to hurt other "AssCan" units in the process.

Nathaniel
10-09-2006, 04:53
Like insectum7 & Draedan I don't believe the assault cannon needs to be changed in anyway.

Each race has their advantages with weaponry. Eldar get all sorts of tank busting & infantry killing that are far more skilled at what they do than the assault cannon. For example the Star cannon; a str 6 heavy AP 2 heavy 3 weapon that can always shoot because it goes on weapon platforms, Wraithlords & Eldar vehicles. Now the Assault cannon does have 1 extra shot & rending but I'd like to point something out to you about rending, IT'S NOT GUARANTEED! The starcannon is fixed, it'll always ignore armour because it's AP 2, plus it can sink light vehicles easily. The only reason it costs more than an assault cannon is because you can get more of them than a marine army can get assault cannons. Marines can only get Assault cannons with their elites & fast attack which removes other good options like Assault marines etc.

To the suggestions that an Assault cannon out performs a Lascannon, no it really doesn't. Lascannons can be put in all sorts of things for huge survivability & the range allows choice of targets. The Assault cannon's range means bringing what is equiped with it into range of all sorts of enemy nasties reducing it's survivability rate compared to a Lascannon. That & Lascanons are far more reliable. With an Assault cannon first you roll to hit which would generally get you 2-3 hits on average then attempt to penetrate the armour so about half the time in theory you'll get a rending shot, which will need an addition rending roll of 4+ to outperform the Lascannon. There is the Necrons as well. Ranged rending doesn't put them down & AP 4 doesn't penetrate their armour. Chances are you'll kill 1 & he gets up next turn, or the Monolith that the Assault cannon can't harm...

All races have certain weapons that do lots of damage in some form, should we limit the Tau because their railgun has a range of 72 & can shoot a str 10 AP 1 shot or a str 6 AP 4 large blast, (which could do more casualties than an Assault cannon) maybe that's too strong like the Assault cannon?

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone but I find that removing a weapon because it give a race an advantage absurd. Marines are the Jack of all trades & master of none. They fight well but aren’t the best fighters, they are hard but not the hardest, they shoot well but aren’t the best at it & so their weaponry reflects that. The Assault cannon is good, like Marines, at being an all rounder & the only times I think it's bad is when I see 9+ of them being used in a friendly game on some poor unsuspecting victim.

So as you can see I voted to have the Assault cannon totally nerfed…. :P

Honestly I voted for no change & I’ve stated my reasons & I have lots more if anyone wants to discuss if in a friendly manner. I hope I haven’t annoyed or insulted anyone readings this either. :)

BrainFireBob
10-09-2006, 06:43
I don't think a single weapon should have that versatility. Plasma gun's the only thing that approaches it, and between Gets Hot! and rapid fire restrictions, it's nowhere near the same gun.

I went AP1 on a to hit of six, I'd also be cool with Rending against troops only.

landraider1
10-09-2006, 08:10
I think they should be more costly if they leave the rules the same. At 1850pts, I have seen 14 assualt cannons fielded. Between speeders and terminators and dreads. That is 56(possibly rending) shots. I don't know of too many armies that can stand against that.

The rule my friend and I have thought about is 4 shots at AP 5 at full range. 3 shots at 18" with rending at the normal cost.

idinos
10-09-2006, 10:44
What a great rule, then maybe the starcannon can become AP5 at full range as well and AP2 at 18'' since an Eldar army can field more than 14 of them at 1850 points. That's 28 (always ignoring saves) shots. Sorry, I meant 42 until the new codex is published.

Just because people take advantage of weapons to abuse army lists doesn't mean that the rules should be changed constantly because someone whines over it. The assault cannon is a good short range weapon, that's all it is. Sure, in theory it might do this and that, but I've yet to destroy a single tank from the front with my 1-3 assault cannons. Sure, getting to the back armor with a land speeder and popping it open works wonders, but you don't need the rending there. Speaking of rending, has anyone bothered to see how difficult it is to rend vehicles? needing 3s and then 6s to get it? and that's somehow better than a lascannon?

Baneboss
10-09-2006, 11:00
needing 3s and then 6s to get it? and that's somehow better than a lascannon?

Haha. There is another myth running around that lascannons are almighty at tankbusting.

Myths aside lets try to be reasonable and involve some math. 4 shots hitting on 3+ with rending is much better than 1 shot that hits on 3+.

To penetrate armour 14 Lascannon needs to roll 6.
AC needs to roll 6 and then at least 3+ but have 4 shots that is why it is better than lascannon.

I dont want to sound like whiny fellow but ask yourself what would you choose to equip your Dreads or LS. I see only AC on them because they can handle any situation.

Sergeant Tanthius
10-09-2006, 11:31
Make LST 0-1 or 0-2. Problem solved.

Seriously, The assault cannon is only cheesed and frowned at due to these fellas. Dreadnoughts get taken down by a few shots and Terminators are very expensive and have only three different special weapon options, compared to the 50 billion on a tactical squad.

Adding Jam will be very cool as well. I started at the start of 4th ed and missed it...

Or add a kind of overheat. On a rending hit the model takes an armour save. tanks get a glancing hit on a 4+. Just my crazy idea.

Smokedog
10-09-2006, 11:50
I would just like to mention (again) that the starcannon is being nurfed. I really thought more people would be opting for option 8 (Remove rending, add Ap 1 for hits on a 6).

This has the adidional benfit of causing penetrating hits when equaling the armour value. so it has a good chance of pentrating anything up to AV12, which is perfect in my opinion, not a massive boost against vehicles, but a boost none-the-less.

Assault cannons ripping throught landraiders while most heavy weapons struggle seems odd.

I don't think any other weapon is getting rending (apart from Maugan ra's) so it seems to be a Marine only special rule. (*cough**imbalanced**cough*)

The marine players seem to think it is no issue, but wait... no other army has it, if shuriken cannons got rending (for example) the marine players would be the first on the board to complain, and btw the shuriken cannon should get rending, but it will never happen.

Helicon_One
10-09-2006, 11:58
I find myself doing a little wince every time I see somebody suggest adding an extra special rule to the AC. K-I-S-S should always be the aim, and the simplest viable solution is to just drop the special rule which causes all the issues with the AC. Nobody is complaining about the 4th shot, nobody has an issue with S6 or AP4 or 24" range, the problem is simply the addition of an un-needed Rending boost which turns the gun into a no-brainer option for everything which has access to it.


and btw the shuriken cannon should get rending, but it will never happen.
Eww. To be honest, no multi-shot ranged wepapon should have Rending, the Shurricannon would be horrendous with such a boost - especially as, unlike Assault Cannons, shurricannons are available in vastly greater numbers than Assault Cannons are (Imagine 6 Guardian squads with shurricannon platforms, 2 on each HS Falcon, minimal Aspect Warrior Elites with twin shurricannon+shurricannon upgrade Wave Serpents, 9 Vypers with 2 each in Fast Attack...)

Tim

Smokedog
10-09-2006, 12:48
Point taken. Just a little rant, and i apologise. I was trying to give a simlarly equpied weapon comparison. The shuriken cannon being St6 and range 24", but obviously looking at the amount of units available to take this weapon, it would be too overpowering.

So i think it is the option of all the redning weapons should be availbe in a very limited way (ie only special character, weapons) and not for standard troops.

Maybe they could make 2 assault cannons. one with rending, one without.

Normal troops/dreadnoughts/landspeeders get St6 A4
Terminators get st6 A4 rending.

Making it terminator only may please most people?

Azazel
10-09-2006, 12:56
The Assault Cannon should keep its Rending. But maybe Rending should be changed so that ranged attacks don't get extra penetration dice.

Helicon_One
10-09-2006, 15:12
So i think it is the option of all the redning weapons should be availbe in a very limited way (ie only special character, weapons) and not for standard troops.

I'd have been fine leaving it just as a close-combat ability, myself. At a push I could see it as a rare upgrade for unpredictable and exotic weaponry (for example the Wraithcannon, or some Necron guns). Not for something as vanilla as a gatling gun.

Tim

mooserehab86
10-09-2006, 16:18
I don't think a single weapon should have that versatility. Plasma gun's the only thing that approaches it, and between Gets Hot! and rapid fire restrictions, it's nowhere near the same gun.

Keep in mind that the plasma gun is available to MANY more units/armies than the assault cannon.

Draedan
10-09-2006, 18:21
I dont want to sound like whiny fellow but ask yourself what would you choose to equip your Dreads or LS. I see only AC on them because they can handle any situation.

I run three dreadnaughts in my 2000pt list (most common point size in my area). I equip all of them with TLLC/ML. It makes a very good fire base. The high strength and long range allows them to sit behind my army and take down vehicles, which they never seem to fail at.


Make LST 0-1 or 0-2. Problem solved.

Seriously, The assault cannon is only cheesed and frowned at due to these fellas. Dreadnoughts get taken down by a few shots and Terminators are very expensive and have only three different special weapon options, compared to the 50 billion on a tactical squad.

Adding Jam will be very cool as well. I started at the start of 4th ed and missed it...

Or add a kind of overheat. On a rending hit the model takes an armour save. tanks get a glancing hit on a 4+. Just my crazy idea.

I think you are right that people only really have a problem with the land speeders, at least in theory. I have never seen or heard of anyone using the 9 LSs of death. And again, I don't think it has to do with it being a powerful combination but psychological effect it has. If it is such a powerful and flexible combination, why isn’t it dominating tournaments?

As for returning jamming? Well if you want to see it in action feel free to use it for your assault cannons to give it a try. I think your heart is in the right place but I played with it in 3rd Ed. It was not fun.


I would just like to mention (again) that the starcannon is being nurfed. I really thought more people would be opting for option 8 (Remove rending, add Ap 1 for hits on a 6).


I never had a problem with star cannon armies, myself. I have played against them many times but it never even entered my mind that it could be considered “unbalanced” until I read it from people on the internet.



This has the adidional benfit of causing penetrating hits when equaling the armour value. so it has a good chance of pentrating anything up to AV12, which is perfect in my opinion, not a massive boost against vehicles, but a boost none-the-less.

Assault cannons ripping throught landraiders while most heavy weapons struggle seems odd.


Ah, so you don’t actually have a problem with rending, you have a problem with assault cannons being able to hurt AV14. Why is this such a big deal? I have had land raider shed off 24 assault cannon shots only to be popped by one of my dreads.


I don't think any other weapon is getting rending (apart from Maugan ra's) so it seems to be a Marine only special rule. (*cough**imbalanced**cough*)


No vehicle other than the monolith gets to ignore extra penetration dice so it seems to be a necron only special rule. (*cough**imbalanced**cough*)

We can do this with every army. They all get special rules to make them different.



The marine players seem to think it is no issue, but wait... no other army has it, if shuriken cannons got rending (for example) the marine players would be the first on the board to complain, and btw the shuriken cannon should get rending, but it will never happen.

Actually the first players on the board to complain would be the ones who are complaining right now.

BloodiedSword
10-09-2006, 18:41
I really dislike the arguments for not-changing Assault Cannons. Almost all of them are based on the following premise:

"The Assault Cannon is not gamebreaking and therefore does not need changing."

Whilst it is indeed not gamebreaking (in general), there is really no need for it to be so massively overpowered in the context of individual squads and weapons options. Whilst Dreadnoughts may want to upgrade to TLLC + ML, bear in mind that 2 of the main sources of Assault Cannons are Dreads and Land Speeders. Why would these ever wish to pay points to downgrade their Assault Cannon to a Multimelta?

They have made the multimelta on these completely obselete as the Assault Cannon is cheaper, better at killing tanks and far far better at killing infantry. This is not because the multimelta is underpowered or overpriced. This can't be right and really needs changing.

marv335
10-09-2006, 20:01
give the multi-melta back it's flamer template rules
(wide spread fire mode, S&Ap as heavy flamer)
bet you'd see more multi-meltas on dreadnaughts and LST then....

Exaradon
10-09-2006, 20:31
IMHO, AP2 on 6 to hit. Almost certain to wound a MEQ, but not capable of ripping tanks open like tinfoil, and less likely to do such major damage to the monstrous creatures out there. All in all, the Marine list became so good with the new 'dex, they dont need the Asscannnon. And one more thing, the Land Speeder should cost 30-35 pts, the Asscannon 50, not the other way around.

Exaradon
10-09-2006, 20:38
Alot of the people complaining seems to need the Asscannon to win. Tactics is a better way. I was at a tournament this weekend, and the list that came second, was a Biel-Tan list, which most of you would have thrown off as not capable of winning. He played with a balanced list, and won purely on tactics. He was a tactitian, which is what the game is all about. Tactics, not who can mount most rending/other hard-as-nails-and-underpriced units.

BrainFireBob
11-09-2006, 00:23
SmokingDog-

It's a multiple option poll. I believe many people either a) Aren't re-reading a thread they already were on, or b) Are taking one of the other options.

marv335
11-09-2006, 00:31
i like the assault cannon just the way it is.
i don't need it to win though.
it's a handy tool for a space marine commander, but not the only one.
and hardly a "no brainer" choice as some people like to assert
is it abuseable?
yes it is.
should it be nerfed because some people abuse it?
no, it should not.

Smokedog
11-09-2006, 01:01
This agian is proving a hot debate, and as it is a debate I am entilted to my opinion, just like anyone else.

I was trying to suggest in my pervious posts, that it is hard for a person to see a wepon as imbalanced when it doesnt affect them.

Personally the assault cannon doesn't strike me as imbalnced on paper, it's only in terms of how it can be used (short ranged weapon - put on a fast moving vehicle: a landspeeder) it negates the short range.

The only real issue I have is the low points costr for such a good wepaon I would have it a 30 -35 points!



No vehicle other than the monolith gets to ignore extra penetration dice so it seems to be a necron only special rule. (*cough**imbalanced**cough*)

We can do this with every army. They all get special rules to make them different.


Just thought i would reply to this. The rending rule is a USR in the rule book, ergo any army should be able to have access to it. The monolith special rule is in the necron codex - do you see the difference here?

Anyway, keep the votes comming in. The last one ended 40% in favor of no change and 60% in favor of change. Lets see what this one yields.

Draedan
11-09-2006, 02:49
Just thought i would reply to this. The rending rule is a USR in the rule book, ergo any army should be able to have access to it.

Really? So where is the thread complaining about how marines dont have lance weapons?

EsDawg
11-09-2006, 03:01
Talking strictly about the Assault Cannon, I've always liked it even during 3rd edition when no one would use it.

As it is now though it's a bit overpowered. It's too rare unlike the Eldar starcannon (I play Eldar fyi), to turn a game on it's head. But giving it another shot and giving it rending is a little too much. Both rules are quite "fluffy" I mean this thing's practically an infantry version of the A-10 Warthog's Vulcan chain cannon.

It deserved an upgrade but GW was a little overzealous with the AS and swung too far the other way. Like I said it's rare enough to not be a huge influence... Unless you're Dark Angel Deathwing or Ravenwing and then you're golden... hmmm maybe it's time to dust off my Ravenwing army :D

UnRiggable
11-09-2006, 03:04
Well the landspeder is better than a sentinel by a long shot so it should cost more than just 35 points. Assault cannon should have a boost

GrimZAG
11-09-2006, 03:44
Lascannons only need a 5 to penetrate not a 6, but it comes down to if you want a dreadnought to be anti-tank or anti-personel.

I wouldn't take a dreadnought in a space marine army, purely because it has armour 12, which is average, I would take terminators with 2 assult cannons though, purely because of the death they bring, and they look cooler than a dreadnought.

BrainFireBob
11-09-2006, 06:00
Lascannons are AP2, not AP1, they need a 6 to Pen AV14, and a 5 to glance.

Asq_Dak
11-09-2006, 08:53
They have made the multimelta on these completely obselete as the Assault Cannon is cheaper, better at killing tanks and far far better at killing infantry. This is not because the multimelta is underpowered or overpriced. This can't be right and really needs changing.

OK, let's work this out with one hit wonder kills on tanks:

Multimelta vs AV14 (NOT monolith). Best conditions (within 12")
(To hit x to penetrate x to destroy) + (To hit x to glance x to destroy)
(2/3 x 21/36 x 1/2) + (2/3 x 5/36 X 1/6)

Is...... 21.0%

Assault Cannon vs AV14 (NOT monolith).
(number of shots x To hit x [to penetrate] x to destroy) + (number of shots x To hit x [to glance] x to destroy)
(4 x 2/3 x [1/6 x 2/3] x 1/2) + (4 x 2/3 x [1/6 x 1/6] x 1/6)

Is...... 16.0%

Looks like a multimelta reigns supreme here. Plus it CAN destroy a monolith where an assault cannon CANNOT.

As for best anti horde, I would have thought flamers and heavy flamers would do much better here - sure you get closer, but you DON'T roll to hit, and against horde it is much easier to get MORE than 4 hits and wounds, so you will kill more a turn.

Against heavy armour stuff, causing more saving throws (like heavy flamers) or more "reliable" AP2 stuff (like plasma) would surely do better than an assault cannon.

I would be more worried by an army of tactical squads with melta guns mounted in razorbacks with multimeltas coming for my vehicles and bike squads with 2 melta guns in each. They can be ALOT more ssurvivable with a turbo boost than an 18" highly effective melta gun range the next turn...

The assault cannon is a good all rounder, but NOT the best tool in a space marine armoury for any single role. For the record, it has been toned down compared to what it was in 2nd ed!

EDIT: Wait a minute, can razorbacks have multi meltas anymore? used to be able to do it for +5pts... But the point is there can be a lot more melta stuff running around than assault cannons...

BrainFireBob
11-09-2006, 09:21
OK, let's work this out with one hit wonder kills on tanks:

Multimelta vs AV14 (NOT monolith). Best conditions (within 12")
(To hit x to penetrate x to destroy) + (To hit x to glance x to destroy)
(2/3 x 21/36 x 1/2) + (2/3 x 5/36 X 1/6)

Is...... 21.0%

Assault Cannon vs AV14 (NOT monolith).
(number of shots x To hit x [to penetrate] x to destroy) + (number of shots x To hit x [to glance] x to destroy)
(4 x 2/3 x [1/6 x 2/3] x 1/2) + (4 x 2/3 x [1/6 x 1/6] x 1/6)

Is...... 16.0%

Looks like a multimelta reigns supreme here. Plus it CAN destroy a monolith where an assault cannon CANNOT.

As for best anti horde, I would have thought flamers and heavy flamers would do much better here - sure you get closer, but you DON'T roll to hit, and against horde it is much easier to get MORE than 4 hits and wounds, so you will kill more a turn.

Against heavy armour stuff, causing more saving throws (like heavy flamers) or more "reliable" AP2 stuff (like plasma) would surely do better than an assault cannon.

I would be more worried by an army of tactical squads with melta guns mounted in razorbacks with multimeltas coming for my vehicles and bike squads with 2 melta guns in each. They can be ALOT more ssurvivable with a turbo boost than an 18" highly effective melta gun range the next turn...

The assault cannon is a good all rounder, but NOT the best tool in a space marine armoury for any single role. For the record, it has been toned down compared to what it was in 2nd ed!

EDIT: Wait a minute, can razorbacks have multi meltas anymore? used to be able to do it for +5pts... But the point is there can be a lot more melta stuff running around than assault cannons...

No more melta razorbacks, alas.

Multimelta's a rare heavy, it's more expensive, it's one shot, and only Speeders and Attack Bikes can put more than one on a target. And it's only better at the "ideal" range of 12" or less.

And run troop-killing aspect numbers on assault cannons realizing that 1/6 hits automatically wound with no saving throws allowed, and that against most troops, 2/3 shots hit, and 5/6 hits wound. With AP4, which ignores the armor of most troops easily. AP 4 is HUGE in a way AP 5 is not.

It's the automatic wound + no saves that makes it so good versus troops. 1/6 hits, with 4 shots per cannon, matters.

Stingray_tm
11-09-2006, 09:25
This weapon almost makes Space Marines into a no-brainer army. When additionally you equip your tac-squads with lascannon/plasma, you really can kill everything in the game with any of your units.

While armies like Tyranids have to carefully select their targets and actually plan ahead in order to be effective, certain Marine lists can just sit back and shot at anything they like. It makes the game less interesting and challenging.

Remove Rending from asscannons and at least you need some specialised anti-tank and anti-horde-squads.

Asq_Dak
11-09-2006, 09:31
But a marine player that specialises their units will result in a better army that won't generate even half as much flak but could be more lethal.

Assault cannons may present a simple and effective army, but by no means the best. I immagine they won't be taken in excessively large volumes - especially as time goes on. The assault cannon won't need changing as it won't be taken as much as people theorise (but then again... eeep...)

BrainFireBob
11-09-2006, 09:33
Apparently it's being taken that commonly NOW in some quarters, and that's the issue.

Nathaniel
11-09-2006, 09:35
I really dislike the arguments for not-changing Assault Cannons. Almost all of them are based on the following premise:

"The Assault Cannon is not gamebreaking and therefore does not need changing."

Whilst it is indeed not gamebreaking (in general), there is really no need for it to be so massively overpowered in the context of individual squads and weapons options. Whilst Dreadnoughts may want to upgrade to TLLC + ML, bear in mind that 2 of the main sources of Assault Cannons are Dreads and Land Speeders. Why would these ever wish to pay points to downgrade their Assault Cannon to a Multimelta?

I'm not sure you're familiar with Land Speeders or your opponents have been putting one over you. You have either a heavy bolter or a multi melta aimed by one of the crew & can put on the bottom hard point an assault cannon for heavy bolter or heavy flamer for multi melta. Now both options are very versatile, both can pop tanks & deal with infantry really well. Difference is that the assault cannon upgrade costs 30pts, so Marines do pay a fair amount to get that assault cannon.


They have made the multimelta on these completely obselete as the Assault Cannon is cheaper, better at killing tanks and far far better at killing infantry. This is not because the multimelta is underpowered or overpriced. This can't be right and really needs changing.


Not at all, I find that the multi melta option with heavy flamer can be far more effective. Things like cover offer opponents saves against rending where a heavy flamer ignores that cover & doesn't need to roll to hit. So if used properly the heavy flamer can do far more casualties against horde armies than the heavy bolter assault cannon combo. The melta is the better tank buster & can be used to more reliably assasinate characters using the speeders manouverability.

Personally I like using both as they perform different rolls in my army for maximum effect. I've faced rending & used it so I know both sides. I just find that ranged rending weapons aren't as reliable as other weapons & they really are weaker compared to combat rending which don't need to worry about cover saves.


I do find the points that several posters have made on rending to be interesting, especially those who have detailed the grievances players hold towards Assault cannons. ;)

I wish a good day to all & hope this discussion does not create any bad feelings. :D

Stingray_tm
11-09-2006, 09:36
But a marine player that specialises their units will result in a better army that won't generate even half as much flak but could be more lethal.


Agreed. But that would be an experienced player. Asscannon, tac/plasma/las - lists are the easy way for noobies... Space Marines can take a lot of hits by design and you can do a lot of damage without thinking. Perfect beginner's army, but where is the fun, when you are on auto-pilot with a safety net, compensating a lot of your tactical faults?

BrainFireBob
11-09-2006, 09:38
Question, Nathaniel-

Do your opponents spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to kill your assault cannon tornados, making them underperform compared to the other variant?

I've seriously considered using them like I use assault termies in my regular army- a relatively cheap firesink to absorb fear fire from units that actually *do* things.

Tymell
11-09-2006, 10:00
I would say myself that the assault cannons do need toning done, but not actually due to any overwhelming power in games. They may well have this, I don't know because I've hardly ever faced them in 4th ed. But personally I just don't feel that the current rules match the what the assault cannon actually IS.

It is not a heavy bolter, its mechanics are closer to those of an autogun. An assault cannon, IIRC, is a very fast firing weapon, but the ammunition is based on plain metal bullets, not the explosive rounds that bolters fire, certainly not to the same degree. A bolter does not fire like a machine gun, it fires small missiles. Bolter ammunition is rocket propelled, leaves a contrail, and will either explode within the target or blow a crater into any armour it hits. It packs a serious wallop. Assault cannons on the other hand, operate (again, IIRC) more like modern day miniguns. Extremely fast firing, and the stopping power of the ammunition is not to be sniffed at, but nevertheless not a patch on bolter weaponry.

Yet we are supposed to accept that these things, even without rending, have strength 6, more than even heavy bolters? :eyebrows: I think not. For me, an assault cannon should be toned down to strength 4, making it on par with the basic bolter (that itself representing the combined effect of more shots than are really rolled for). I just can't honestly imagine an assault cannon striking with more power than a heavy bolter.

And as for rending, that's out too. Where the heck did that even come from??? Genestealers with rending, that makes sense, because their claws are razor-sharp and powerful, able to slice through thick armour. But since when was that part of the assault cannon? Rending is a rule for taking out heavily armoured opponents and vehicles, and these are NOT the domain of the assault cannon. As such both the high strength and rending seem unjustified when considering what the weapon actually is.

Thank you to anyone who bore with me for that ;)

Nathaniel
11-09-2006, 14:13
Question, Nathaniel-

Do your opponents spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to kill your assault cannon tornados, making them underperform compared to the other variant?

I've seriously considered using them like I use assault termies in my regular army- a relatively cheap firesink to absorb fear fire from units that actually *do* things.

No, most opponents I've played know that my Landspeeder Tornado is a fast flying paper bag so they generally only get 1-2 units shooting at them at most. I have 1 Tornado & 5 terminators with 1 assault cannon, so 2 assault cannons in my army in total. The terminators do attract fire(& lots of it :p)
but I'm forced to zip the Tornado around to avoid as much fire as possible while doing some sort of damage.

There are a few players however who go to serious trouble to take down my Tornado however & I generally use that to my advantage more than what firepower the Tornado can put out.:angel:


I would say myself that the assault cannons do need toning done, but not actually due to any overwhelming power in games. They may well have this, I don't know because I've hardly ever faced them in 4th ed. But personally I just don't feel that the current rules match the what the assault cannon actually IS.

It is not a heavy bolter, its mechanics are closer to those of an autogun. An assault cannon, IIRC, is a very fast firing weapon, but the ammunition is based on plain metal bullets, not the explosive rounds that bolters fire, certainly not to the same degree. A bolter does not fire like a machine gun, it fires small missiles. Bolter ammunition is rocket propelled, leaves a contrail, and will either explode within the target or blow a crater into any armour it hits. It packs a serious wallop. Assault cannons on the other hand, operate (again, IIRC) more like modern day miniguns. Extremely fast firing, and the stopping power of the ammunition is not to be sniffed at, but nevertheless not a patch on bolter weaponry.

Yet we are supposed to accept that these things, even without rending, have strength 6, more than even heavy bolters? I think not. For me, an assault cannon should be toned down to strength 4, making it on par with the basic bolter (that itself representing the combined effect of more shots than are really rolled for). I just can't honestly imagine an assault cannon striking with more power than a heavy bolter.

And as for rending, that's out too. Where the heck did that even come from??? Genestealers with rending, that makes sense, because their claws are razor-sharp and powerful, able to slice through thick armour. But since when was that part of the assault cannon? Rending is a rule for taking out heavily armoured opponents and vehicles, and these are NOT the domain of the assault cannon. As such both the high strength and rending seem unjustified when considering what the weapon actually is.

Thank you to anyone who bore with me for that

I highly doubt that the Assault cannon variants that we have today match in any form those that would be around in 40k. Remember everything is much nastier, especially the guns. Rending represents tearing chunks off things, in the case of the Assault cannon we have the shots chipping off armour & burning hot shrapnel flying into peoples flesh. That to me sounds like a str 6 rending weapon. ;)

Tymell
11-09-2006, 22:22
I highly doubt that the Assault cannon variants that we have today match in any form those that would be around in 40k. Remember everything is much nastier, especially the guns. Rending represents tearing chunks off things, in the case of the Assault cannon we have the shots chipping off armour & burning hot shrapnel flying into peoples flesh. That to me sounds like a str 6 rending weapon. ;)

Current miniguns and the like are also capable of such feats, but I can't see why the assault cannon should occasionally punch through armour and kill someone outright, it doesn't really seem to fit. As far as advancing of weaponry goes, bear in mind that with the Imperium that's very patchy. Because they have to rely on which STCs they find, some technology can seem highly advanced, while some is hardly much further on than the modern day.

Strength 4 is generally seen too much as an average strength IMO. But it really isn't, 3 is. That's the typical strength, and a strength 4 gun packs a big punch, while strength 5 is really powerful indeed. An assault cannon isn't lightweight, but it doesn't fit strength 6 either. Strength 4 is still significantly more powerful than average autoguns and lasguns. :)

AtlantianWarrior
11-09-2006, 23:21
This thread is a good read through. At first my thought was why change the Assault Cannon. Then I started to wounder why GW upped the rate of fire and added rending. Are other amies going to be getting something similar in the future? I think that they can drop the rending on it. The SM have enough weapons to kill tanks.If the SM are the only army that will have a shooting weapon hat can rend I think it should be droped. I play the 666th chapter and we take all of the AT weapons we can get.:D

UnRiggable
12-09-2006, 00:08
I imagine that S4 is average. Almost every army has a S4 gun. But keep in mind that the long barrel adds more power to the shot and therefore a potentially faster moving bullet. Of course rending is pushing it, but assault 4 isn't. I think it's like, the heli-mounted gun in the original matrix movie (name?). Assault cannon should get S4 AP4 or 5 because of it's high speed's ability to penetrate armor and then Heavy 4 (nobody can pick this **** up). Of course then it competes with the heavy bolter.

At least offer this huge rigged weapon to the guard!

Ozendorph
12-09-2006, 00:11
I primarily play a DA army, and I use a few assault cannons (two in a termie squad, 1 on a dread). Personally I think the rending ability is just a bit much...sort of makes them into an all-purpose, do-everything supergun. I considered using a multi-melta on my dread, but then I got a hold of my senses and realized how much better the AssCannon really is.

I'm fine with the number of shots, range, strength, etc...but the rending really ought to take a hike.

luchog
12-09-2006, 20:17
Current miniguns and the like are also capable of such feats,

Except that they're not.

Miniguns are not capable of punching through heavy armour, no one in their right mind uses one against a tank, because the worst that you're likely to do is damage one of the small crew-machine guns or some of the viewports. Miniguns are made for the express purpose of taking out fast-moving light-armoured vehicles such as aircraft and FAVs. They are designed throw a huge number of small kinetic rounds which, individually, do not do much damage; but which are very very difficult to avoid. Since aircraft and FAVs have very little armour, it would only take a handful few of those small kinetic rounds to do major damage, disabling or destroying the target. It is theoritically possible for even a hand-held rifle to take down such a target if it should hit the right spot, since rifle rounds are easily capable of penetrating such armour; but the target is too small and fast moving to have a realistic chance of doing any damage, let alone critical damage. By putting out a whole lot of rounds little bigger than rifle rounds, equivalent to several score troops with rapid-firing rifles, chances are greatly increased that a critical hit will be made. It's not the strength of the round that is the key to their usefulness, it's sheer volume.

Thus, the current stats for the asscannon are really ridiculous with regard to what the weapon actually is. The previously mentioned S4 AP4 Heavy 4 (or even Assault 4) is a far more realistic; since with that volume, you're far more likely to hit a vulnerable or weaker spot on the armour. Vehicles having heavy armour with far fewer vulnerable points would naturally be far less likely to be damaged. Rending is just plain ridiculous, since they just cannot concentrate fire, and the round it much too small to carry the necessary energy. A heavy bolter should be more likely to penetrate armour than an asscannon/autocannon.

Buttons
12-09-2006, 20:46
Miniguns are not capable of punching through heavy armour, no one in their right mind uses one against a tank, because the worst that you're likely to do is damage one of the small crew-machine guns or some of the viewports. Miniguns are made for the express purpose of taking out fast-moving light-armoured vehicles such as aircraft and FAVs. They are designed throw a huge number of small kinetic rounds which, individually, do not do much damage; but which are very very difficult to avoid. Since aircraft and FAVs have very little armour, it would only take a handful few of those small kinetic rounds to do major damage, disabling or destroying the target. It is theoritically possible for even a hand-held rifle to take down such a target if it should hit the right spot, since rifle rounds are easily capable of penetrating such armour; but the target is too small and fast moving to have a realistic chance of doing any damage, let alone critical damage. By putting out a whole lot of rounds little bigger than rifle rounds, equivalent to several score troops with rapid-firing rifles, chances are greatly increased that a critical hit will be made. It's not the strength of the round that is the key to their usefulness, it's sheer volume.
Except you have current vehicles built around them... example? A10 Warthog. AC130 Gunships. Most fighter aircraft.

StormKnight
12-09-2006, 21:33
Except you have current vehicles built around them... example? A10 Warthog. AC130 Gunships. Most fighter aircraft.

The Avenger cannon on the A-10 hardly qualifies as a minigun. It may look the same, but its specifically designed as a tank-busting cannon. The thing is 19' long for crying out loud!

Tymell
12-09-2006, 22:29
Except that they're not.

Miniguns are not capable of punching through heavy armour, no one in their right mind uses one against a tank, because the worst that you're likely to do is damage one of the small crew-machine guns or some of the viewports. Miniguns are made for the express purpose of taking out fast-moving light-armoured vehicles such as aircraft and FAVs. They are designed throw a huge number of small kinetic rounds which, individually, do not do much damage; but which are very very difficult to avoid. Since aircraft and FAVs have very little armour, it would only take a handful few of those small kinetic rounds to do major damage, disabling or destroying the target. It is theoritically possible for even a hand-held rifle to take down such a target if it should hit the right spot, since rifle rounds are easily capable of penetrating such armour; but the target is too small and fast moving to have a realistic chance of doing any damage, let alone critical damage. By putting out a whole lot of rounds little bigger than rifle rounds, equivalent to several score troops with rapid-firing rifles, chances are greatly increased that a critical hit will be made. It's not the strength of the round that is the key to their usefulness, it's sheer volume.

Thus, the current stats for the asscannon are really ridiculous with regard to what the weapon actually is. The previously mentioned S4 AP4 Heavy 4 (or even Assault 4) is a far more realistic; since with that volume, you're far more likely to hit a vulnerable or weaker spot on the armour. Vehicles having heavy armour with far fewer vulnerable points would naturally be far less likely to be damaged. Rending is just plain ridiculous, since they just cannot concentrate fire, and the round it much too small to carry the necessary energy. A heavy bolter should be more likely to penetrate armour than an asscannon/autocannon.

I'm left kind of confused as to whether you're agreeing with me or not, since you disagree about miniguns yet I very much go for the strength 4 AP4 thing. I also think you might have misinterpreted my point. If you read my post, I was responding specifically to the line "we have the shots chipping off armour & burning hot shrapnel flying into peoples flesh". That was what I was saying miniguns are capable of, not of punching through thick armour. That's the very reason I disagree with strength 6 on the assault cannon. Such weapons, to my mind, might be able to score a lucky hit on an engine if it was exposed, or knock a skimmer around enough to make it crash, which would fit nicely with strength 4, only just able to stop lightly armoured vehicles and more able to do so due to the high rate of fire. Indeed, your very description of the modern day minigun is just how I imagine an assault cannon working.

insectum7
12-09-2006, 22:34
The Avenger cannon on the A-10 hardly qualifies as a minigun. It may look the same, but its specifically designed as a tank-busting cannon. The thing is 19' long for crying out loud!

Why can't the Assault Cannon be an in-between of a smaller minigun and one that's specifically built around taking out tanks? There's definitely room for the Assault Cannons existence in there.

If you wanted one to really take out tanks you could VDR Mega, Gatling, Long-barrell it and mount it on a flyer. Ta-DAaaa! A-10

As it is, it ain't great at taking out tanks. It's capable, but to reliably take out the bigger vehicles I usually find myself using alot of Lascannon shots, while using the A-Cannons to do what they do best, which is to throw dice at infantry.

One can compare all day the anti-tank capability of the A-Cannon and the Lascannon. One on one, the A-cannon is a bit better, but with the number of Lascannons available to a marine player, I feel the A-Cannon just isn't that scary. Likewise, because of the range of the Lascannons, I can usually focus my efforts on killing specific threats with several units around the board. I am not about to break cover with an expensive squad of Land Speeders just to take out a tank, I'm going to focus well positioned infantry fire form several units to make sure it goes down, and keep myself less open for an effective counter-punch.

Buttons
12-09-2006, 22:34
The Avenger cannon on the A-10 hardly qualifies as a minigun. It may look the same, but its specifically designed as a tank-busting cannon. The thing is 19' long for crying out loud!
Point being? The assault cannons are 6 feet tall as well, with a larger bore in comparison, plus likely have far more effective ammunition than simply DU rounds. After all the standard armament for the same force is a caseless delayed action exploding bullet.

Death Whisper
12-09-2006, 22:43
I think I've read some fluff somewhere about the rounds the assault cannon fires being tipped with adamantium like the "Kraken" Penetrator round. I'm not too sure on that though.

The rules for the assault cannon supposedly come from the high volume of these rounds tipped with a substance comparable to whatever material rending claws are composed of. What irks me about this is that the Rending Universal Special Rule is attributed to the extremely high number of these diamond-hard projectiles literally tearing the target apart.

If it's the high number of shots that represents the Rending, why does it have so many shots? Each shot on the in-game profile should represent a burst of shots, (like how real miniguns are fired) and there should be less shots and keep Rending or remove Rending and increase the number of shots. Or alternatively the Cyclic Ion Blaster rules could be fine too with 4 shots.

insectum7
12-09-2006, 23:02
Why does it have so many shots? Wha?

Because the gun shoots faster than you may think it does. It has 4 shots to wound up to 4 models in a squad, it has 4 shots to attempt to rend through a vehicles armor.

Each roll of the dice might represent 100 actual projectiles being thrown out, making a 400 round burst in a turn. Which is pretty concieveable when you see the firing rates of a modern minigun, which can be 4000 rounds a minute, or 66.66 rounds a second.

In any case what really matters in the relationships on the table, which seem fine to me.

Death Whisper
12-09-2006, 23:10
But the Rending is supposed to be represented by the high number of shots is what I'm saying. The reason why the shots have Rending is because each shot in the in-game profile represents a whole lot of diamond-hard, high kinetic energy bullets. It has a high rate of fire for each individual bullet in each burst of fire. It doesn't have a high rate of fire for firing the bursts themselves. What the assault cannon currently sounds like is a gun composed of 4 miniguns fused together.

Nehcrum
12-09-2006, 23:42
Except you have current vehicles built around them... example? A10 Warthog. AC130 Gunships. Most fighter aircraft.

The Avenger cannon on the A-10 hardly qualifies as a minigun. It may look the same, but its specifically designed as a tank-busting cannon. The thing is 19' long for crying out loud!
Common misconception about the A-10.
The GAU-8 Avenger gun is not designed to take out Tanks, it can theoretically do it but in reality the angle which the rounds will hit the tanks from the flying A-10 means they won't get maximum impact.

The A-10 gatling is designed to take out trucks, jeeps, cars and other lightly-armored vehicles, tanks are dealt with by using AGM-65 Maverick missiles. Fact is, the Maverick missiles are considered as the A-10's main weapon, NOT the gatling gun.
Never forget, the A-10 is not a fighter, it's a bomber, it carries up to 16'000 lbs of bombs and missiles underneath it.


As said earlier, most miniguns (for example the very weapon of the gatling family with the name "minigun") is of smaller normal calibre, the minigun fires 7.62mm NATO rounds. They are not more powerful per single round compared to a rifle of the same calibre, it's effectiveness lies in the amount of bullets it fire.



Anyone comparing the asscannon to the GAU-8 needs to take a check on the GAU-8 size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GAU-8_avenger.jpg
I'd say that the GAU-8 is bigger than a landspeeder just by itself. A dreadnought would look silly with a gun as big as that and terminators would have a hard time not tipping over due to the gun being so long and heavy.

And then we aren't even considering the MASSIVE recoil of the gun, The GAU-8 provides more thrusts when it is fired than one of the jet engines that is keeping the A-10 flying. Meaning that when it is fired, (only for very short bursts) the whole plane actually slows down noticeably.
A poor little landspeeder would be sent skimming across the battlefield like it was a football that someone just kicked, Dreadnoughts would tip over and Terminitors would suddenly become airborne....

insectum7
12-09-2006, 23:42
But the Rending is supposed to be represented by the high number of shots is what I'm saying. The reason why the shots have Rending is because each shot in the in-game profile represents a whole lot of diamond-hard, high kinetic energy bullets. It has a high rate of fire for each individual bullet in each burst of fire. It doesn't have a high rate of fire for firing the bursts themselves. What the assault cannon currently sounds like is a gun composed of 4 miniguns fused together.

?

I think each shot can be a burst of fire, and that the 4 dice (shots) represent an even longer busrt of fire from the same gun. Each shot might represent a second of firing from the gun, but the whole attack (4 dice) can represent a 4 second burst. Each second of firing spewing 60-100 rounds. So all in all the gun might spit 400-600 rounds in the alloted time.

100 rounds represented by each die roll is surely enough to count as "high number of projectiles" and 4 shots represents more time firing.

The numbers aren't specific by any means, I just use them to get a point across here. But I was looking for some examples and found the stats on the US m61 Vulcan minigun, which is 6,000 rpm, 1.83 m in length, 114kg, and shoots 20mm bullets. I'ts a gun mounted on planes to shoot at other planes, and it seems like the Assault Cannon could be something similar.

What really matters is that the Assault Cannon can hit several people if spraying in the direction of a squad, and that it can chew through armor if it's focussed on a part of a tank.

Also, because a turn represents some indeterminate amount of time, the Terminator (for example) doesn't need to be just holding the trigger down. It could be that there are several controlled bursts as he stomps forward, or that he holds down the tigger in the hopes of beating through the armor on a tank or whatever.

-responding to Nehcrum---

The A-10 GAU-8 Avenger IS considered a tankbuster. It has two types of ammunition, incindiary for softer targets (jeeps, trucks whatnot) and also depleted uranium for tanks. Check it out. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm

Clearly that specific gun isn't whats on the Terminators, but year 40,000 has giant lasers and flying tanks and daemons too. Why not a fancy minigun?

bertcom1
12-09-2006, 23:43
Assault cannon description from 3rd ed main rulebook.

"The assault cannon is a six-barrelled, self loading autocannon..."
"Assault cannons fire a fixed cartridge round, a dense metallic core covered in a non-metallic composite sheath with a diamantine tip. This gives good armour penetration and stable flight ballistics at short ranges and keeps the rounds small, so tht more ammunition can be carried."

It is described as an autocannon, that fires "thousands of shells".
This is somewhat incompatible with the round apparently being solid - the dense metallic core etc. Shells are explosive, solid slugs are not. If it fires solid slugs, then they are not shells.

As for use, it is described as being used by Terminators for "confined areas and tunnel fighting for clearing rooms and corridors". This means it is really supposed to be an anti-personnel weapon.

The assault cannon should not be compared with the 30mm gatling autocannons as fitted to A-10s, that is a real heavyweight weapon.

Closer modern equivalents would be the M134 Minigun that fires rifle calibre solid rounds, and the M61 Vulcan which is a 20mm gatling autocannon. The Vulcan is approx 6ft long.

Neither of these is particularly good at penetrating armoured vehicles. Even the Avenger on the A-10 only gets 70mm penetration at 500m. That's enough to destroy light vehicles and penetrate the top deck armour of tanks, but nowhere near enough to penetrate front or side armour of main battle tanks.


The assault cannon on Dreadnoughts carries 2000 rounds. Terminators probably carry a similar amount. Say you get 5 firing attempts in a game, then that's 400 rounds a burst maximum. That's quite a lot. Any infantry model caught by the assault cannon should suffer.

Str 6 seems reasonable to me for the reason that it's a lot of rounds hitting the target, but it should not be enough to penetrate AV13 or 14 tanks.

I do not think that the Assault cannon having Rending vs vehicles is credible.

Lu Bu
13-09-2006, 00:32
Take away the rending. Have you not played against a Assault cannon army. In my 2 game of warhammer 40k I used one. I looked in the codex and simply looked for the best weapon then got as many as possible. Land raider terminators and land speeders. My friend an experienced player was overwhelmed by the fire power and did not stand a chance. Now you could say "It was luck", or "He was not that good." But i tell nay. I have no luck at this game. Cant roll to save my life. Then he is a great player.

insectum7
13-09-2006, 01:23
It is described as an autocannon, that fires "thousands of shells".
This is somewhat incompatible with the round apparently being solid - the dense metallic core etc. Shells are explosive, solid slugs are not. If it fires solid slugs, then they are not shells.

...

Neither of these is particularly good at penetrating armoured vehicles. Even the Avenger on the A-10 only gets 70mm penetration at 500m. That's enough to destroy light vehicles and penetrate the top deck armour of tanks, but nowhere near enough to penetrate front or side armour of main battle tanks.

I do not think that the Assault cannon having Rending vs vehicles is credible.

Well we do have to be carefull when using the 'unrealistic' arguments. For example, when you cry 'thats not possible!' at the same time your 20-foot-tall-magma-bodied-manifestation-of-a-god is running down the field at me, the 'unrealistic' argument doesn't hold alot of water.

I think that there is enough precedent in modern day firearms to warrant a minigun style weapon, that is effective against both infantry and tanks, in the hands of humanitys finest warriors of the 41st millenium. These guys DO teleport into battle from orbiting space craft, and there isn't much precedent for that in the modern world.


As for use, it is described as being used by Terminators for "confined areas and tunnel fighting for clearing rooms and corridors". This means it is really supposed to be an anti-personnel weapon.


But doesn't mean that it is necessarily limited to that purpose, in 2nd edition the Assault Cannon was also a decent tank killer, so there is some amount of historical precdent, and the fluff will only go so far anyways. There are numerous examples where the fluff and the game have trouble fitting together.

'Realism' and fluff aside, the meat of the discussion left is whether or not the A-Cannon is too powerfull in terms of game balance. Which I don't think it is. I think that the units it is on are either costly enough or fragile enough for the Asault Cannon to not be the major issue that some people make it out to be.

As for the Assault Cannon laden armies, depending on what the armies, terrain and mission are they might seem overpowering. But many armies are capable of making very powerfull and perhaps abusive lists, and those lists tend to have the rock, paper, scissors effect, where either it works really well, or it fails horribly. For example, an overabundance of A-cannons doesn't work too well vs. an army that relies on Monoliths, which are immune to the rending effects. Similarly, for 600 points a wily player can take 60 DEldar with 12 Dark Lances and sit them in buildings, and woe betide the player who brings only Terminators, Land Speeders or Dreadnaughts to do their fighting.

There is always something abusive available to abusive players, regardless of army.

Smokedog
13-09-2006, 12:51
176 voters at the time of this post... there was around 400 at the end of the last one, I was hoping to exceed that amount.

only 35% say that it should stay as it is and the rest call for change. I hope that GW hear the voice of the people.

When is the next rulebook due anyone know? 2009?

Tymell
13-09-2006, 13:28
176 voters at the time of this post... there was around 400 at the end of the last one, I was hoping to exceed that amount.

only 35% say that it should stay as it is and the rest call for change. I hope that GW hear the voice of the people.

When is the next rulebook due anyone know? 2009?

As soon as they finish re-releasing all of the codices :rolleyes: A few months after that we'll probably see a new edition.

Eh, doesn't hugely bother me anyway. I only play with a select group of friends, not in clubs, stores or tournies, so as with any rules we don't think make sense we can just change them. This is just one of several.

EDIT: Oh and yay, I just made Chaplain :D

Gen_eV
13-09-2006, 13:30
The only problem with the AC is that it's pretty much a no-brainer choice for Terminators. Ocasionally you get the players who like the idea of Heavy Flamers/Cyclones, but effectiveness-wise, they're not as good as the Assault Cannon by quite a margin.

Either tone it down or beef up the Cyclone, is what I say. Preferably beef up the cyclone - as it is, it's no better than a Tac Marine's ML, which is just silly.

(Before anyone complains about suggestions to beef up Marines, I don't actually play them - my CSM won't get these benefits)

BloodiedSword
13-09-2006, 17:03
I think you really need the suspension of disbelief thing with the Assault Cannon - after all, I seem to remember reading somewhere that it fired solid slug ammo.

Now, looking in my primary school physics textbook I see that every force has an equal and opposite, meaning that if I fire a 50 gram (random number that sounds about right) slug out of a Land Speeder at 2000m/s, that is going to send the 1000kg Land Speeder flying the opposite direction at 0.1 m/s. If I fire 400 rounds in one second (roughly at the same time), that means the Land Speeder is going to go flying backwards at 40 m/s.

Hmm.

Similar issues with the Hammerhead, only a lot more severe in that case. I seem to recall the US navy wanted to try to develop a railgun for a battleship until they realised that firing it sideways would tip the battleship over..

Justicar Jacob
13-09-2006, 17:09
I like to go by fluff. The assualt cannon is a 5 ft minigun that spits out shells heavier then .50 cals, at a really insane fast fire rate. We have similar weapons in our militaries (a-10 nose gun, phalanx naval defense network) and they dont jam often enough for it to be a noted probelm, thier range and accuracy are right on. So I belive the assualt cannon is right where it needs to be. I play against plenty of assualt cannon armys and it doesnt bother me too mcuh. (raven wing, death wing, some space marine armies who like 3 termies squads with 6 assualt cannons)

High Marshal Trenth
13-09-2006, 17:12
Hmm how about NO! do not get rid of rending...wtf are you people thinking, if so get rid of that railgun with ap1 uber frigen range and str 10.....

Wolflord Havoc
13-09-2006, 18:01
The rules for Assault cannon are fine as they currently stand.

In version 2 of 40K the Assault cannon was a weapon to be feared by every model on the battle field what with its ability to fire upto 9 shots a turn each one capable of turning a Space marine hero, Avatar etc into diced gibblets with just 1 of those shots - in version 3 it was reduced to something little better than a move and fire heavy bolter - the current rules I think put the weapon where it needs to be.

However when you are faced with 9 - 12 of them in a 1500 point game it is very easy to think that they are over powered. This I think is the problem - it is too easy to field a lot of them - in the same way that Eldar can field lots of Starcannon, Tau lots of Rail guns, Necron lots of Destroyers etc - rather than an issue with the weapon effect/cost itself.

bertcom1
13-09-2006, 18:33
I think you really need the suspension of disbelief thing with the Assault Cannon - after all, I seem to remember reading somewhere that it fired solid slug ammo.

Now, looking in my primary school physics textbook I see that every force has an equal and opposite, meaning that if I fire a 50 gram (random number that sounds about right) slug out of a Land Speeder at 2000m/s, that is going to send the 1000kg Land Speeder flying the opposite direction at 0.1 m/s. If I fire 400 rounds in one second (roughly at the same time), that means the Land Speeder is going to go flying backwards at 40 m/s.

Hmm.

Similar issues with the Hammerhead, only a lot more severe in that case. I seem to recall the US navy wanted to try to develop a railgun for a battleship until they realised that firing it sideways would tip the battleship over..


Land speeder is a lot more than 1000kg. There is a variant in one of the Imperial Armours that is 12000kg. So 8000kg for a Landspeeder is probably more appropriate.

2000m/s for the rounds is very high. 1000m/s is more believable.

400rounds/s is 24000rounds/min. That's a bit high. 3000 or 6000 rounds/min is more credible.

So at 100 rounds/s at 1000m/s on a vehicle 8000kg mass, it is not going to be flying backwards at 40m/s, it would only be 0.625m/s

Plus, the Land Speeder's engines would provide an opposing force to the recoil.


As for railguns on Hammerheads, then how big is the shell, how fast does it leave the gun, what is the mass of a Hammerhead? It's at least 12 tonnes, That would mean it could fire a 5kg shell at 2000m/s and only recoil at 0.8m/s. Again, it's engines would counteract this.

And railguns big enough to flip a battleship would be weapons so powerful they could fire 9 10 tonne shells at above Earth's escape velocity. No use for artillery.



I still think that the assault cannon should not rend against heavy vehicles. It is fine as is against infantry and light vehicles.

Tymell
13-09-2006, 23:44
Hmm how about NO! do not get rid of rending...wtf are you people thinking, if so get rid of that railgun with ap1 uber frigen range and str 10.....

A cogent argument can really help your posts sometimes.

The railgun is supposed to be like that, that is the weapons purpose. Plus, that can only be fired like that from a single heavy tank. The assault cannon can be mounted on terminators, land speeders and dreadnoughts and costs less.

This topic has generated a lot of discussion and many votes as you can see above. If you wish to start a topic about toning down the Railgun Solid Shot then perhaps we should see what that generates.

insectum7
13-09-2006, 23:52
Well, maybe the Assault Canons purpose is to provide at least some effectiveness vs. all targets. It did in 2nd edition, it does now. It is a pretty fancy gun, and I think justifiably so.

The Railgun isn't only mounted on the tank. The solid shot is available to the Broadside Battlesuits.

High Marshal Trenth
14-09-2006, 05:42
A cogent argument can really help your posts sometimes.

The railgun is supposed to be like that, that is the weapons purpose. Plus, that can only be fired like that from a single heavy tank. The assault cannon can be mounted on terminators, land speeders and dreadnoughts and costs less.

This topic has generated a lot of discussion and many votes as you can see above. If you wish to start a topic about toning down the Railgun Solid Shot then perhaps we should see what that generates.

Ok you want a cogent argument huh? try this out for size, stop complaining about the game and just play it. Ever thought of this? The weapons in this game are from the future, they dont need much of an explaniation....humanity advanced so far that they CAN create such a weapon of destruction. O and about fielding alot of them in a thousand point game....have you ever actually made one with more than 3? hmm lets do the point cost shall we? Ok here goes. 5 terminators 2 assault cannons....240 points for 5 models, next, hmmm lets say, 3 landspeeders minimum point cost for assualt cannon 240 pts ok this is 480 points so far, almost half of your point cost, now what else can we mount an assualt cannon on? hmmm o yes, dreadnought, 105 pts that brings us up to 585 pts, now we have past the half way point. Ok, we have a wopping 9 models on the table, ok lets buy minimum troops shall we? (by the way, we are just going Ultramarines) hmm 2 5 man squads at 15 points a model so this brings us at 150 points. Ok our total so far is now 735 now this brings us up to 19 models and no major tank destroying weapons. Now for our HQ. Hmmm well now lets see minimum Commander=80 points plus hmmm lets see how about a louzy chain sword! yay! I believe is 1 pt, o how about a 1 pt bolt pistol! woot! yes! this is one hell of a model here folks. Now this brings us to....817 pts. Leaves us with 183 pts left hmmm how about.....2 more landspeeders with assualtcannons witch now put us at 977 pts. Now we have 22 models, no major tank destroying weapons, a very lousy commander, a wopping 2 5 man squads, and 5 vehicals that are VERY easy to pop, whats this you say? It moves over six and can now only be glanced? O NO, ok, you glance it, chances are that it wont be able to shoot next turn, now it is not a threat, also, it can still be destroyed by immobalized and a six. Now back on our assualt cannons that so many people complain about. lets see, you have to roll a six, sorry to say folks, thats pretty hard, just recently I fielded 3 thats right 3 in a thousand point game, nothing over powererd or broken, I rolled...3 6's before they were destoryed on turn 2, (land speeders btw). Yes, if you ask me, max assualt cannons are not worth it. Low model count, High point count, the units that they are on besides termis are well, easily destroyed, and the whole rending thing is not as easy to get as everyone makes it seem. Stop complaining about the game and just play it.....if you dont like some of the weapons or stats, just stop playing because well, no one likes an opponent that does nothing but complain about how he or she lost because of the weapons or units his or her opponent used. Try using tactics for once instead of weapons and try not complaining every time your beat by a better player and blaming the units that they use. Its like complaining that a person plays a certain army....

marv335
14-09-2006, 08:24
Ok you want a cogent argument huh? try this out for size, stop complaining about the game and just play it. Ever thought of this? The weapons in this game are from the future, they dont need much of an explaniation....humanity advanced so far that they CAN create such a weapon of destruction. O and about fielding alot of them in a thousand point game....have you ever actually made one with more than 3? hmm lets do the point cost shall we? Ok here goes. 5 terminators 2 assault cannons....240 points for 5 models, next, hmmm lets say, 3 landspeeders minimum point cost for assualt cannon 240 pts ok this is 480 points so far, almost half of your point cost, now what else can we mount an assualt cannon on? hmmm o yes, dreadnought, 105 pts that brings us up to 585 pts, now we have past the half way point. Ok, we have a wopping 9 models on the table, ok lets buy minimum troops shall we? (by the way, we are just going Ultramarines) hmm 2 5 man squads at 15 points a model so this brings us at 150 points. Ok our total so far is now 735 now this brings us up to 19 models and no major tank destroying weapons. Now for our HQ. Hmmm well now lets see minimum Commander=80 points plus hmmm lets see how about a louzy chain sword! yay! I believe is 1 pt, o how about a 1 pt bolt pistol! woot! yes! this is one hell of a model here folks. Now this brings us to....817 pts. Leaves us with 183 pts left hmmm how about.....2 more landspeeders with assualtcannons witch now put us at 977 pts. Now we have 22 models, no major tank destroying weapons, a very lousy commander, a wopping 2 5 man squads, and 5 vehicals that are VERY easy to pop, whats this you say? It moves over six and can now only be glanced? O NO, ok, you glance it, chances are that it wont be able to shoot next turn, now it is not a threat, also, it can still be destroyed by immobalized and a six. Now back on our assualt cannons that so many people complain about. lets see, you have to roll a six, sorry to say folks, thats pretty hard, just recently I fielded 3 thats right 3 in a thousand point game, nothing over powererd or broken, I rolled...3 6's before they were destoryed on turn 2, (land speeders btw). Yes, if you ask me, max assualt cannons are not worth it. Low model count, High point count, the units that they are on besides termis are well, easily destroyed, and the whole rending thing is not as easy to get as everyone makes it seem. Stop complaining about the game and just play it.....if you dont like some of the weapons or stats, just stop playing because well, no one likes an opponent that does nothing but complain about how he or she lost because of the weapons or units his or her opponent used. Try using tactics for once instead of weapons and try not complaining every time your beat by a better player and blaming the units that they use. Its like complaining that a person plays a certain army....

quoted for truth.

well said.

Nehcrum
14-09-2006, 09:15
Ok you want a cogent argument huh? try this out for size, stop complaining about the game and just play it. Ever thought of this? The weapons in this game are from the future, they dont need much of an explaniation....humanity advanced so far that they CAN create such a weapon of destruction. O and about fielding alot of them in a thousand point game....have you ever actually made one with more than 3? hmm lets do the point cost shall we? Ok here goes. 5 terminators 2 assault cannons....240 points for 5 models, next, hmmm lets say, 3 landspeeders minimum point cost for assualt cannon 240 pts ok this is 480 points so far, almost half of your point cost, now what else can we mount an assualt cannon on? hmmm o yes, dreadnought, 105 pts that brings us up to 585 pts, now we have past the half way point. Ok, we have a wopping 9 models on the table, ok lets buy minimum troops shall we? (by the way, we are just going Ultramarines) hmm 2 5 man squads at 15 points a model so this brings us at 150 points. Ok our total so far is now 735 now this brings us up to 19 models and no major tank destroying weapons. Now for our HQ. Hmmm well now lets see minimum Commander=80 points plus hmmm lets see how about a louzy chain sword! yay! I believe is 1 pt, o how about a 1 pt bolt pistol! woot! yes! this is one hell of a model here folks. Now this brings us to....817 pts. Leaves us with 183 pts left hmmm how about.....2 more landspeeders with assualtcannons witch now put us at 977 pts. Now we have 22 models, no major tank destroying weapons, a very lousy commander, a wopping 2 5 man squads, and 5 vehicals that are VERY easy to pop, whats this you say? It moves over six and can now only be glanced? O NO, ok, you glance it, chances are that it wont be able to shoot next turn, now it is not a threat, also, it can still be destroyed by immobalized and a six. Now back on our assualt cannons that so many people complain about. lets see, you have to roll a six, sorry to say folks, thats pretty hard, just recently I fielded 3 thats right 3 in a thousand point game, nothing over powererd or broken, I rolled...3 6's before they were destoryed on turn 2, (land speeders btw). Yes, if you ask me, max assualt cannons are not worth it. Low model count, High point count, the units that they are on besides termis are well, easily destroyed, and the whole rending thing is not as easy to get as everyone makes it seem. Stop complaining about the game and just play it.....if you dont like some of the weapons or stats, just stop playing because well, no one likes an opponent that does nothing but complain about how he or she lost because of the weapons or units his or her opponent used. Try using tactics for once instead of weapons and try not complaining every time your beat by a better player and blaming the units that they use. Its like complaining that a person plays a certain army....
"No major tank destroying weapons"?
Have you missed the repeated fact, that Asscannons are actually better tank destroying weapons than lascannons?

Actually, here is what a marine asscannon cheese list looks like.

Captain + 2x5 scout squads
190 pts

Land speeder tornado 3x3
720 pts

Dreadnought 3x1
315 pts

Whirlwind 3x1
255 pts

Total, 1480 pts
12 asscannons, 3 whirlwind pieplates.
Leaves us with 20 points...can give 1 scout squad a ML and the other a HB, and a storm bolter for the captain.

1500 pts.



The tactics to use this list is easy. Deploy the scouts + captain in cover, let them just stand still and shoot.
Dreads will march forward, fire and try to reach CC with easy targets.
Whirlwinds deploy behind terrain and drop pieplates.

Only real trick is in how you deep-strike the landspeeders, just make sure you drop them down where they can't get massed fire, and they get to spit out 9 HB shots and 12 Asscannon shots when they come in, so they should be able to severly cripple anything they target.

Edit: Advantage of the list is that there is very little infantry, so any weapons with a S of 3 is near useless. And until the landspeeders come in, bolters and other equivalent basic infantry weapons are useless (cant reach scouts without walking forward, got no chance to harm the dreads). The whirlwinds should not be shot at normally (unless deepstriked), dreads can take a bit with their AV12, landspeeders should be able to use terrain, mobility and their high firepower to reduce possible incoming fire.

Smokedog
14-09-2006, 09:15
Interesting post from High Marshal Trenth. I bit over the top maybe. I would like to point out that somethings in the game need balancing, not removing. Ie, if someting seems to good/bad then it should be revised in some way.

Lets have a look at the up and comming eldar dex for examples
Starcannon:
old rules - 3 shots Ap2 st6
new rules - 2 shots ap2 st6

Wraithlord
old rules - st 10 t8 monster with 3 wounds
new rules - st 10 t8 monster with 3 wounds - must take heavy weapon - now has wraithsight.

Avatar -
old rules not powerful enough
new rules - becomes more powerful.

You see the trend here. Games workshop made a mistake with the assault cannon (good god no!). So thats why this thread exisits and why they will change it in the future. Mark my words.

Asq_Dak
14-09-2006, 09:25
Only real trick is in how you deep-strike the landspeeders, just make sure you drop them down where they can't get massed fire, and they get to spit out 9 HB shots and 12 Asscannon shots when they come in, so they should be able to severly cripple anything they target.

Accordong to the Space marine FAQ on the GW website, a deepstriking landspeeder counts as moving OVER 12" on a turn it deep strikes, so CANNOT shoot when it comes down.


You see the trend here. Games workshop made a mistake with the assault cannon (good god no!). So thats why this thread exisits and why they will change it in the future. Mark my words.

Maybe they DID make a mistake with the assault cannon, but maybe they made a mistake with it back in 3rd ed which people here seem more familiar with.

In 2nd ed the assault cannon literally shot up to 9 krak missile equivalents (but less save mod). It was far superior to a heavy bolter. More shots, better save mod, more armour penetration, more damage.

Cue 3rd ed where the assault cannon became the same as a heavy bolter with 1 more str and 12" less range. Perhaps they felt this was a mistake and wanted to bring the HUGE difference BACK.

So 4th ed, the assault cannon gets 4 shots (which is about right - should be 4-5 shots max ever in this edition in my opinion, based on what has happened to all sustained fire weapons). Great. But to make the destinction between that and a heavy bolter better, they gave it rending. Now it is as form idible as back in 2nd ed comparatively.

However, back then it was harder to get hold of so many. Land speeders with assault cannons should be left to raven wing.

As for rending, I think that should only have its cool effect at close range (12") like a multi-melta does.

synapse
14-09-2006, 13:01
i voted for jamming in nostalgia of 2nd edition :) though, as a marine player who uses them (one on a dread, one on a crusader and 2 in a termie unit) and as someone whose been on the receiving end (as tyranids) i dont think theres anything wrong with it, though i still dont understand why they made it Heavy 4 and rending. when it was still a rumour i thought i was going to be one or the other... not both!

Tymell
14-09-2006, 13:19
The Railgun isn't only mounted on the tank. The solid shot is available to the Broadside Battlesuits.

Ah true enough, I apologise for that. I got it confused with the submission shot.

Now, to the argument at hand.

Thanks for a post that elaborates more Trenth, though as has been mentioned perhaps a little OTT. However, please note that I'm not myself particularly complaining about the guns effectiveness in battle. I want it changed due to fluff issues, and the main reason I replied to your post is because I think it makes no sense to compare it to the railguns.

The kneejerk reaction to a strength 10 AP1 weapon is indeed to think it horribly overpowered. But bear in mind even before Tau weapons of comparable, equal, or even greater strength existed, and more have followed. Just look at the stuff available to the Imperial Guard for examples of this, or even certain Eldar weapons. The lascannon, battle cannon, exorcist missile, hunter killer missile, demolisher, earthshaker, multi-melta, orbital strikes, bright lances, dark lances, prism cannon, D-cannon, heavy gauss cannon. All are very strong weapons as well, and some can be taken far more than railguns. As far as the railgun have a huge range goes, how often does it matter? Given that you have to make the game fair, and therefore possible for infantry to get into combat, how often do you really play games where the enemy can only be reached with a 72" range?

Also, part of the problem with the Assault cannon is its usefulness against many different targets. A strength 10 AP1 gun is nasty indeed, but try firing it as a swarm of Orks or Hormogaunts. Even if you get lucky and hit you'll only ever kill a single one, its overkill. The assault cannon is a more flexible weapon.

It's also still more widely availble to Space Marine armies. If they wish they can kit out their HQ, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support with them. Railguns are still only available as Heavy Support, and they pay for them. If you think the railguns are underpriced, that's a different issue.

Things cannot simply be explained away with "It's the future, therefore we don't have to make any attempt to explain it." This argument -can- work in some circumstances, but with the assault cannon we have a weapon very similar to modern day weaponry and one which GW have made attempts to properly explain. Taking into account what these say it does seem unrepresentitive of what it should be. Heck, even working railguns have been created, and by all accounts if they could be made to function reliably they would indeed be far stronger than bullet weapons and have huge range.

It also may well have been far more powerful in 2nd ed. and maybe under-powerered in 3rd, but just because something was around in 2nd edition doesn't really offer sufficient explanation.

Ultimately I really don't have a huge problem with the assault cannons, though I do think they need toning down to be more in keeping with what they should be. But really, any list can be made cheesy.

Guns don't cheese lists, people cheese lists. :cheese:

Oh, and also IIRC posting specific points values generally isn't a good idea.

High Marshal Trenth
14-09-2006, 15:18
Ah true enough, I apologise for that. I got it confused with the submission shot.

Now, to the argument at hand.

Thanks for a post that elaborates more Trenth, though as has been mentioned perhaps a little OTT. However, please note that I'm not myself particularly complaining about the guns effectiveness in battle. I want it changed due to fluff issues, and the main reason I replied to your post is because I think it makes no sense to compare it to the railguns.

The kneejerk reaction to a strength 10 AP1 weapon is indeed to think it horribly overpowered. But bear in mind even before Tau weapons of comparable, equal, or even greater strength existed, and more have followed. Just look at the stuff available to the Imperial Guard for examples of this, or even certain Eldar weapons. The lascannon, battle cannon, exorcist missile, hunter killer missile, demolisher, earthshaker, multi-melta, orbital strikes, bright lances, dark lances, prism cannon, D-cannon, heavy gauss cannon. All are very strong weapons as well, and some can be taken far more than railguns. As far as the railgun have a huge range goes, how often does it matter? Given that you have to make the game fair, and therefore possible for infantry to get into combat, how often do you really play games where the enemy can only be reached with a 72" range?

Also, part of the problem with the Assault cannon is its usefulness against many different targets. A strength 10 AP1 gun is nasty indeed, but try firing it as a swarm of Orks or Hormogaunts. Even if you get lucky and hit you'll only ever kill a single one, its overkill. The assault cannon is a more flexible weapon.

It's also still more widely availble to Space Marine armies. If they wish they can kit out their HQ, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support with them. Railguns are still only available as Heavy Support, and they pay for them. If you think the railguns are underpriced, that's a different issue.

Things cannot simply be explained away with "It's the future, therefore we don't have to make any attempt to explain it." This argument -can- work in some circumstances, but with the assault cannon we have a weapon very similar to modern day weaponry and one which GW have made attempts to properly explain. Taking into account what these say it does seem unrepresentitive of what it should be. Heck, even working railguns have been created, and by all accounts if they could be made to function reliably they would indeed be far stronger than bullet weapons and have huge range.

It also may well have been far more powerful in 2nd ed. and maybe under-powerered in 3rd, but just because something was around in 2nd edition doesn't really offer sufficient explanation.

Ultimately I really don't have a huge problem with the assault cannons, though I do think they need toning down to be more in keeping with what they should be. But really, any list can be made cheesy.

Guns don't cheese lists, people cheese lists. :cheese:

Oh, and also IIRC posting specific points values generally isn't a good idea.



Sorry about the point cost, just wanted to make my point very clear. I agree that facing against such a weapon must be kinda lame BUT if your opponent doesnt cheese out his army then what is the harm of a couple of them? I would agree fully with a "cap" on them in an army but to just change the rules for it completely would just be, in simple terms "DUMB" Maybe just bring down the heavey 4 to heavy 3 and make the point cost for them a tad bit more. Since an assault cannon for a terminator squad is "GENERALLY" "ABOUT" 20 pts how about making it 40 pts? This would definately componsate for the rending considering that a 5 man termi squad would cost you "ABOUT" 280 pts, a much better deal. Also, the landspeeder tornado should cost about say 100 to maybe 110 with an assault cannon instead of the "GENERAL" 80ish points. BUT like I said, if people would just play FUN armies then no one would have this problem in the first place now would they.

marv335
14-09-2006, 16:22
i don't max out on assault cannons. so why should i pay more for them?

insectum7
14-09-2006, 23:03
I want it changed due to fluff issues...
The kneejerk reaction to a strength 10 AP1 weapon is indeed to think it horribly overpowered. But bear in mind even before Tau weapons of comparable, equal, or even greater strength existed, and more have followed. Just look at the stuff available to the Imperial Guard for examples of this, or even certain Eldar weapons. The lascannon, battle cannon, exorcist missile, hunter killer missile, demolisher, earthshaker, multi-melta, orbital strikes, bright lances, dark lances, prism cannon, D-cannon, heavy gauss cannon. All are very strong weapons as well, and some can be taken far more than railguns. As far as the railgun have a huge range goes, how often does it matter? Given that you have to make the game fair, and therefore possible for infantry to get into combat, how often do you really play games where the enemy can only be reached with a 72" range?

I think the Railgun was being used as one example of an extreme weapon in the game. The point really is that every race has some pretty fancy gear, and this represents a tactical hurdle that every army fights a little differently.

As for range, I think range is a really big advantage if one is playing the game right. However, I have seen the line-up-and-roll-dice-from-24" far to much in public gaming, which will cut down the usefulness of range dramatically.


Also, part of the problem with the Assault cannon is its usefulness against many different targets. A strength 10 AP1 gun is nasty indeed, but try firing it as a swarm of Orks or Hormogaunts. Even if you get lucky and hit you'll only ever kill a single one, its overkill. The assault cannon is a more flexible weapon.

It's also still more widely availble to Space Marine armies.

It's fairly useful against alot of targets, but it still aint great by itself. Your talkin maybe 2-3 dead orks, 1 dead marine or possibly a damaged -maybe- destroyed tank, you still need a combination of things to do real damage. The bigger ordinance weapons are similarly effective against light troops and tanks, but far, far more effective vs the heavy infantry. Heck the hellhound Inferno Cannon is a damn fine troop and light armor killer, though it's biased more towards the 'troops' side of the scale than the 'tanks'.

The Assault Cannon IS widely available to Marine players, that I think is perhaps the crux of the problem. The combination of multi-target effectiveness AND the fact that a player can take gobs of them if they really want to abuse the codex. But aside from the abusive players, (which are available in many colors and flavors, not just Space Marines, and not just Assault Cannons) are the Assault Cannon rules really in need of changing for the sake of balance?

Imp guard list for comparison:
3 x Demolishers with stuff, 3 x Hellhounds, add whatever else you want to this, maybe deep striking special weapons teams with demolition charges in addition to the rest of the army.

Thats a gruesome amount of high-punch, multi-purpose guns and units. But people play and fight against Marines all the time, the popularity of the army itself leads to more complaints about their gear. If half the gamers out there played Necrons or Dark Eldar, there would probably be similar discussions about the sheer volume of Dark Lances available to the DE player, or the Gauss effect of nearly all Necron guns.


Things cannot simply be explained away with "It's the future, therefore we don't have to make any attempt to explain it."

Well, yeah they kinda can. The game involves magic and demons and Orks in Spaaaaace! One can only go so far with the arguments for realism. We can look at the other popular heavy weapons the Space Marines get, and see their reality equivalent:

Missile Launcher: pretty easy to understand
Assault Cannon: yeah we got those
Heavy Bolter: hmm well, a rapid firing mini-rpg is pushing it, but not impossible
Lascannon: not with our batteries
Heavy Plasma Gun: ok, ok, not even close to anything similar
Multimelta: there are giant aentennaes that will fry birds passing through the tranmission wave, but it certainly hasn't been weaponized.

The Assault Cannon is among the two most believeable weapons there.

When the guy carrying the A-Cannon is wandering around in an 800 pound suit of armor that can survive a direct hit from an orbiting spacecraft, I think that the 'modern' weapon is allowed some amount of souping up. When GW describes the weapon, you can't pigeonhole your conception of 'shells' or 'bullets' by basing them on modern day equivalents. In the context of the 41st millenium they might as well be.... I dunno..... like, mini-nuclear bombs with an implosion squeeze 1 1/2" wide, or you could just say the gunpowder is hugely better and increases muzzle velocity by a factor of 10. The point is that the technology is fantastic, and requires little to no precedent in the world we live in.


It also may well have been far more powerful in 2nd ed. and maybe under-powerered in 3rd, but just because something was around in 2nd edition doesn't really offer sufficient explanation.

Ultimately I really don't have a huge problem with the assault cannons, though I do think they need toning down to be more in keeping with what they should be.


The 2nd ed Assault Cannon was brought up for a little history for those who joined our 40K ranks during 3rd ed, when the A-Cannon was positively abysmal when compared to the twin-linked Heavy Bolters for the same cost on a dreadnaught (for example). I will however, be among the first to say that 2nd ed was hardly an ideal game. But I do think that the finest of humanitys warriors ought to have the some of the best equipment, and that 3rd ed robbed us of that.

I DO have some trouble with the Land Speeder and it's ability to take the Assault Cannon, but only when it's used in large numbers. Mostly I see it as a support unit and not a front line one, so I don't think people should rely on it to do their fighting. Personally, I don't take them anyways because they can't hold ground like my troops can. For the same cost of 2 Land Speeders, I get a whole squad of marines, and marines themselves are good at killing AND taking and holding ground. 10 Marines is tough and adaptable to the situation, Land Speeders just shoot stuff.

People have many different ideas on what they (a-cannons) should be. I'm happy where they are, but unhappy that players abuse them. Im in this in defense of my Terminators and my Dreadnaughts, and I think the Assault Cannon is where it ought to be for those units.

StormKnight
14-09-2006, 23:36
Things cannot simply be explained away with "It's the future, therefore we don't have to make any attempt to explain it."
This is a techno-fantasy game; weapons and equipment don't need to correspond to our current technology.

However, when a weapon looks and sounds like something we are familiar with, its reasonable that we expect it to look and act in a similar way. Bolters, based on their appearance, use and description resemble modern assault rifles. Thus, we expect them to act somewhat like modern assault rifles in the, and don't expect them to be blowing up tanks. We do expect missile launchers to be blowing up tanks, or taking out groups with a big explosion, but we don't expect them to be rapid-firing dozens of shots to mow down hordes of troops. Regardless of what a sci-fi/fantasy missile launcher could be capable of, we expect it to behave like the missile launchers we think of.

This even extends to constructs with no real basis; Genestealers look and sound like the critters from 'Aliens', so we expect them to be sneak critters that really rip things apart close up.

Some troops and items have no realistic basis for comparison; most of us have no pre-conceived idea of what a "melta-gun" is, and its description doesn't match up with any existing weapon, so it can freely do whatever the heck the game designers want without fear of offending our sense of game reality.

As far as past versions, didn't assault cannons used to be STR 8? The potential extra D6 armor penetration averages an extra 3 1/2 points, but since you only get it on a 6, and a roll of 6 + STR 8 would at least glance against any armor, it hasn't really gotten an upgrade from old times too much.

What bothers me is the assault cannon seems too much better than the other options available to the same troops types; Heavy Flamers and Cyclones SHOULD be viable weapons for Terminators, for example. It seems like the assault cannon is so strong it seems questionable to soup of the other weapons to the same level, so that leads to feeling like the assault cannon needs a little downgrading, but I'm not sure what is best.

Asq_Dak
15-09-2006, 09:10
Well from 2nd to 3rd ed, all three of these weapons, the a-cannon, heavy flamer and cyclone, were downgraded.

In 4th ed, only the a-cannon has been upgraded. That makes the difference between these weapons quite a bit more distinct. But imagine the complaints if a cyclone were made heavy 2? or the equivalent of a reaper autolauncher? And what if a heavy flamer's template size was increased again? The complaints would be endless too... So I guess that's why people want the a-cannon downgraded again...

However, I see the use of heavy flamers - and they are VERY useful. My speeders have heavy flamers and multimeltas. Because of their speed, and because meltas are the best thing to kill tank, they perform better than the a-cannon, h-bolter variant at this. Because heavy flamers auto hit and ignore cover, I find that they are also better at the anti-personnel role too. Admittedly they put themselves at alot of risk here, but I have assault marines to charge in and mop up afterwards to keep the speeders safe. And at 5pts less a pop I find them much more useful.

And if you don't like the a-cannon, only play city fight where you will have plenty of 4+ cover saves it can't ignore.

High Marshal Trenth
15-09-2006, 15:23
i don't max out on assault cannons. so why should i pay more for them?

True, True, but I was just saying this to calm the angry mobs of people complaining about it. I think that the only thing they should do IF they do nerf it is limit its numbers in an army. Rather than that its fine as is.

VetSgtNamaan
15-09-2006, 15:39
True I mean the problem is not with the weapon but the min/maxing. Though honestly if you put troops in cover then the rending is not really all that bad. It seems fairly clear to me that they made it crazy on purpose to sell crap loads of assault cannons. I mean who would buy an assault cannon termie before 3rd it seems fairly silly to me. So they boosted it then all the stores were able to get rid of all the stock of assault cannons instead of just sending them back to GW at the end of every year. Which I am not sure is a well known fact that independent stores can send back stock that does not sell at the end of every year. GW is none to eager to volunteer this but they do give the store credit for all the returned items which means GW could have huge stockpiles of some stuff if they design poorly. best way to get rid of it make the weapons uber ;)

x-esiv-4c
15-09-2006, 16:03
It should be rending 6, 1 roll for each barrel of kickassness. :)

High Marshal Trenth
16-09-2006, 02:03
It should be rending 6, 1 roll for each barrel of kickassness. :)

YES! indeed!

marv335
16-09-2006, 02:07
True I mean the problem is not with the weapon but the min/maxing. Though honestly if you put troops in cover then the rending is not really all that bad. It seems fairly clear to me that they made it crazy on purpose to sell crap loads of assault cannons. I mean who would buy an assault cannon termie before 3rd it seems fairly silly to me. So they boosted it then all the stores were able to get rid of all the stock of assault cannons instead of just sending them back to GW at the end of every year. Which I am not sure is a well known fact that independent stores can send back stock that does not sell at the end of every year. GW is none to eager to volunteer this but they do give the store credit for all the returned items which means GW could have huge stockpiles of some stuff if they design poorly. best way to get rid of it make the weapons uber ;)

that would have been all well and good, but they went and released a box set with all the weapon options in it. most people i know waited until the new terminators came out, so boosting the stats of the assault cannon didn't really have much of an effect (except getting people to buy two boxes to get the extra assault cannon)

Chem-Dog
16-09-2006, 02:41
As I've said before it appears in fairly small numbers and works well as it is, no need to tinker with it in any way, just beat the people who abuse it, like people who use Las/plas squads.

High Marshal Trenth
16-09-2006, 09:01
Dirty Las Plas basterds <,< Thats just plain not nice......

Smokedog
16-09-2006, 23:33
A little shy of the 300 votes I got last time. Still around 65% looking for change. Though not as clear cut wat to do with the assault cannon. Well I hope GW come up with somehing.

....Although I did read another post somewhere by hellebore that said that the rending rules should change, not the assault cannon. And actually this makes more sense. He basically said that the rending rules for shooting attacks should change. He suggested removing the extra dice roll, so the maximum for a assault cannon would be 12. He also suggested that rending should count as AP1. In that way hits against AV12 vehicles would be penetrating hits.

Thinking about it now, it should be the rending rule, not the assaut cannon that changes.

Captain Jeffrey
17-09-2006, 03:41
The Assault Cannon is just fine- only Terminators, the Blood Angel Predator, a Land Speeder variant, and the Land Raider Crusader get to carry it.

It's only a 24" gun, and the Autocannon is, in general, better, and much more available in a Chaos army.

It's balanced. It wasn't that great of a weapon under the older 3rd rules, and now it actually, finally, does something.

Nehcrum
17-09-2006, 05:28
The Assault Cannon is just fine- only Terminators, the Blood Angel Predator, a Land Speeder variant, and the Land Raider Crusader get to carry it.

It's only a 24" gun, and the Autocannon is, in general, better, and much more available in a Chaos army.

It's balanced. It wasn't that great of a weapon under the older 3rd rules, and now it actually, finally, does something.
Dreadnoughts also gets it.

And yes, Autocannons are much more available in a Chaos army, since Chaos dones't have the Asscannon at all.

And no, the Autocannon is nowhere near in comparison to the Asscannon. Just 1 more S, same AP, and half the amount of shots.
And that's not even mentioning that Asscannons are better at shooting tanks than even Lascannons.
The ONLY real advantage Autocannon has is it's range. And 24" is plenty when it is mounted on something that can deepstrike, move fast and/or got high durability and can take going into combat to take some return fire.

BrainFireBob
17-09-2006, 07:09
Captain, I think you underestimate the power of Rending on a gun.

Tymell
17-09-2006, 11:31
Especially on a gun with 4 shots per turn. In three turns of shooting 2 of those shots will be rending, statisitcally. I'm not trying to reduce the game to mere statistics, just illustrating that that is still pretty nasty.

lack0fbettername
20-09-2006, 19:12
I didnt take the time to read thru pages 6-11 so forgive me if i touch on something others have said.

I think the problem with the assault cannon is that it just about does everything alteast better if not on par with any other gun the marins have.

Of these guns, lascannon, TL-lasannon, melta weapon, missile, autocannon, plasma cannon, plasma gun, assault cannon, heavy bolter, and TL-heavy bolter...

Mathmaticly it has the best chance to destory a AV 9 & 10 Vehicle, its 3rd best at shooting up 11 & 12 AV (behind a under 1/2 range melta shot and twin linked lascannon) and 2nd best at 13 & 14 (behind our 1/2 range melta shot)

At shooting up terminators it comes in 3rd. Blasting MEQ comes in 2nd, and at eatting guard type stuff its the best.

No other weapon in the 40K universe matches it in versitility.

As for fluff wise, (and one of my personal problems with it) why should it be rending? It launches a hail of bullets at a high rate of fire yes... however wouldnt that be the "heavy 4". I mean what is so cool about the assault cannon bullets that make them rend? Is it like they are uranium depleated or what? If so why hasnt this technology been more wide spread to the IG and likes? It seams with all the high tech eldar, tau and cron weaponry, fluff wise they would be one of the first races to get a rending ranged weapon.

Maynard
20-09-2006, 19:42
I think the reason it's rending is probably to emphasize the fact that there's such a high chance of one of it's bullets hitting where another already has, i.e. the first takes care of the armour the second goes through the same hole.

It does fire 1000 rounds per minute after all.

The reason I don't thin it should be changed is...well look at chaos marines.
Then compare them to the bog standard marine codex.
Then compare that to the like of the space wolf codex! Space wolf termies can have 3 assault cannons in a a 9 man squad.